Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Old Church Slavonic

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old Church Slavonic Wikipedia[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Old Church Slavonic)
submitted verification final decision
Application-certificate.svg This proposal has been approved.
The Board of Trustees and language committee have deemed that there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The requested project was created at cu: at an indeterminate date. Note that this request was approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy, and should not be used as a model for future requests. Shanel 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Notes/comments:
    • listed in en:ISO 639-1
    • An en:extinct language.
    • Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius wrote some books in this language.
    • ISO 639 code "cu" contain also en:Church Slavonic language, a en:liturgical language.
    • Script issues, Cyrillic vs Glagolitic
      • Why an issues, the two script (and the two language) would be allowed, isn't it ? (9 feb 2005)
      • If you disallow more than one script, subomains would be cu-Glag, cu-Cyrs, cu-Cyrl. (16 Mar 2005)
      • This Wikipedia should be Cyrillic, I think. (16 July 2005)
      • We can have each article written twice: in Glagolitic and Cyrillic script (e.g. in Gothic Wikipedia there are pages written using Gothic alphabet and their Latin transliterations), with redirects of these 2 variants to each other... But it would be perfect to do as the Chinese Wikipedians did: they have options allowing to display both traditional and simplified hieroglyphs. -- Alexander Gerashchenko 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This idea is quite less moribund than the Slovio Wikipedia and I am sure you can find more supporters for it. If you want Glagolitic script, then write a converting program. I'm just convinced Cyrillic is far more practical: it is read by all of the potential users and supported by the simplest Unicode versions, unlike Glagolitic. Caesarion 17:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In Russia it is learned in church schools, so many clericals can speak it.--Nxx 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Church Slavonic Wikipedia really should exist - if even Anglo-Saxon and Gothic ones do! -- Alexander Gerashchenko 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Serbian wikipedia has special script to convert content between various scripts, so using glagolic alongside with cyrillic shouldn't be a problem. Kneiphof 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Keeno 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Again, etymologically important and also important as a liturgical language, so definitely.Reply[reply]
  • Support --Ted-m 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SupportSergej Lazarev 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Maxim Razin 07:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --TheFEARgod 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- 19:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Nxx 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]